Patterns of Statewide Test Participation for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Abstract

Students with significant cognitive disabilities are eligible to participate in two statewide testing options for accountability: alternate assessments or general assessments with appropriate accommodations. Participation guidelines are generally quite vague, leading to students "switching" test participation between years. In this study, we tracked test participation for two cohorts of students with a documented disability over 3 years. Results suggested approximately 25% of students who initially took the alternate assessment switched test type at least once, although patterns of switching were not consistent across disabilities. Students on the performance "bubble" were more likely to switch test participation. Test switching poses challenges for monitoring students' academic growth within accountability frameworks.

Testing for All: An Exploration of Disproportionality in the Georgia Alternate Assessments

“…Additional procedural safeguards should be established within the referral process to minimize overrepresentation or underrepresentation of identified groups (Cho & Kingston, 2015). Although not within the scope of this study, reliability and validity of the portfolio based GAA for students with significant cognitive disabilities is of concern and future researchers may wish to better address these measurement issues (Saven et al, 2016).…”

“…A second study conducted by Albus and Thurlow (2012) echoed these sentiments but also added that 49 states mandated that a student must present with a significant cognitive disability to participate in alternate assessments. However, since no federal definition for the term 'significant cognitive disability' exists, states receive some degree of leniency in the implementation of participation guidelines (Saven et al, 2016). Likewise, although many states have chosen to use alternate standards for students that take alternate assessments (Evans & Domaleski, 2018;Streagle & Scott, 2015), some states like Georgia do not (Roach, Elliot, & Webb, 2005).…”

“…Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) teams typically determine eligibility for special services under IDEA as well as whether or not students qualify to participate in statewide assessments (Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005). There is a significant amount of variability in the student referral process and inclusion criteria for alternate assessment (Albus & Thurlow, 2012;Saven, Anderson, Nese, Farley, & Tindal, 2016;Thurlow, 2005;Thurlow et al, 2005). Such variability may contribute to potential biases and disproportionate representation among students participating in alternate assessment.…”

Modeling the Time-Varying Nature of Student Exceptionality Classification on Achievement Growth

“…Changes in special education classification and the movement of students into and out of special education are well documented (Carlson & Parshall, 1996; Saven, Anderson, Nese, Farley, & Tindal, 2016; Schulte & Stevens, 2015; Walker et al, 1988; Ysseldyke & Bielinski, 2002). Walker et al (1988) conducted a 2-year follow-up of 1,184 elementary-school SWD and found that of those who remained in the school district, 17% were no longer receiving special education services, and another 12% changed disability classification.…”

Modeling Reading Growth in Grades 3 to 5 With an Alternate Assessment

“…Modeling students’ academic growth can be challenging, even in relatively ideal situations (Raudenbush, 2001; Rogosa, Brandt, & Zimowski, 1982). The challenges in modeling academic growth are amplified for students with significant cognitive disabilities (SWSCD) who are administered alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS; see Karvonen, Flowers, & Wakeman, 2013; Saven, Anderson, Nese, Farley, & Tindal, 2016). These challenges can include missing data, test scaling, small sample sizes, and group heterogeneity.…”